King v. State ex rel. Halbert Township of Martin County

• Decision Date: 17 February 1911
• Docket Number: 7,196
• Citation: 93 N.E. 1082,47 Ind.App. 595
• Parties: KING ET AL. v. THE STATE OF INDIANA, EX REL. HALBERT TOWNSHIP OF MARTIN COUNTY
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

93 N.E. 1082

47 Ind.App. 595

KING ET AL. v. THE STATE OF INDIANA, EX REL. HALBERT TOWNSHIP OF MARTIN COUNTY

No. 7,196

Court of Appeals of Indiana

February 17, 1911

Rehearing denied May 10, 1911.

From Martin Circuit Court; Clinton K. Tharp, Special Judge.

Action by The State of Indiana, on the relation of Halbert Township of Martin County, Indiana, against Carl C. King and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

A. J Padgett, Alvin Padgett and Hiram McCormick, for appellants.

Frank E. Gilkison and Fabius Gwin, for appellee.

OPINION

ADAMS, J.

This action was brought by the State, on the relation of Halbert township of Martin county, against Carl C. King and others for an alleged breach of a gravel road contractor's bond.

Rule twenty-two of the Supreme Court and this court is as follows: "The brief of appellant shall contain a short and clear statement disclosing: First. The nature of the action. Second. What the issues were. Third. How the issues were decided, and what the judgment or decree was. Fourth. The errors relied upon for reversal. Fifth. A concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and exception relied on." It has so often been held that a substantial compliance with said rule is necessary, and the principle is now so well established, that a citation of authorities would add nothing to this opinion.

Appellants' brief, under the head of "Issues," shows that appellants demurred to the amended complaint for want of sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, and that the court overruled the demurrer, to which ruling appellants excepted. It is shown under the head of "Points," that "the complaint is questioned by assignment of error, and was also questioned in the court below by demurrer." Under the head of "How the Issues Were Determined," the brief shows that "appellants filed a written motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and they excepted." No other reference is made in the brief to the motion for a new trial. A number of instructions given and refused are set out under "Points," with the statement that giving, or refusing to give, each was error.

We do not consider this a compliance with the most reasonable interpretation of the rules of this court in the matter of preparing appellants' brief. In order to facilitate the work of the court and to secure the prompt and orderly dispatch of business, it is...